An analysis of indices and ratios in anthropometric body measurements among team sports athletes

INTRODUCTION

Sports performance depends on various components, such as physical body composition, exercise, and nutrition. Indexes and ratios of body factors like body mass index (BMI), a body shape index (ABSI), waist-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-height ratio (WHtR) affect the performance of team sports players. Analyzing an athlete's body composition is crucial for optimizing their health and sports performance.¹ Regular exercise maintains fitness, prevents injuries and diseases, preserves muscle and bone density, balances energy, and prevents fat accumulation.² However, some sports require changes in body mass and composition that might not be suitable for every athlete.³ Sports fitness relies heavily on body composition: bulk and lean mass are essential in sports like American football and heavyweight athletics, while low body fat is beneficial in endurance sports like running and cycling. Strength-to-mass ratio is crucial in sports like gymnastics and boxing, where maintaining weight is key, especially in weight-class sports such as boxing and martial arts. In combined anaerobic and aerobic sports, such as basketball and soccer, low body fat and high lean mass are advantageous.⁴ Conversely, sports that emphasize strength and power, like weightlifting, may exhibit higher BMI values due to increased muscle mass, which does not necessarily correlate with increased fat mass.⁵

The ratios of the human body provide insights into the development of individual body segments.⁶ BMI, a basic height-based bodyweight index, is widely recognized as an efficient and non-invasive method to categorize individuals based on body size. It is computed as follows: kg/m², or weight (Wt) in kg divided by height (Ht) in meters squared. Despite its limitations, this metric is frequently employed by healthcare professionals to evaluate general health status and to identify potential health risks related to overweight or fatness.⁷ BMI serves as a crucial measure for assessing health across various populations and is a vital component in maintaining a healthy lifestyle.⁸ While commonly utilized by healthcare professionals, such as doctors and personal trainers, to evaluate a person's weight status, BMI may not always accurately reflect body fat levels, particularly in athletes with a muscular build. WHR, a measure of fat distribution, is computed by splitting the waist circumferences (WC) and hip circumferences (HC) together, serving as a straightforward metric to identify undesirable increases in abdominal fat.⁹ This ratio is particularly significant in the context of sports and athletes, as it provides insights into the body fat distribution, a factor closely linked to both physical performance and the risk of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases.¹⁰

WHtR excels in pinpointing abdominal obesity and the associated health risks. It surpasses other measures in accurately detecting central fat accumulation and its related health concerns, making it a superior indicator for assessing the dangers linked to abdominal obesity.^11-13 WHtR is a more effective discriminatory tool compared to WC and BMI.¹⁰ The ABSI is a tool employed to evaluate the threat of health problems connected to body shape, particularly obesity in the middle body.¹⁴ It is calculated employing WC, with Wt and Ht adjustments. This index helps evaluate whether a person has a higher risk for health issues like cardiovascular disease or diabetes, based on their abdominal fat relative to their body size.^15,16 Research indicates that using BMI and ABSI together could be beneficial in clinical settings, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of health assessments in practice.¹⁷

This study aims to understand the anthropometric statuses, body indices, and ratios in university-level team sports athletes. Basketball, handball, and volleyball each have unique physical demands and preferred body compositions, which can significantly impact an athlete's performance. Data regarding anthropometric status, body indices, and ratios provide insights into the current physical condition of athletes, which is essential for creating specialized training and nutrition plans, improving performance, and reducing the likelihood of injuries related to sports. Additionally, understanding these differences can aid in the optimal selection and development of athletes in university sports programs, ensuring that individuals are matched with the sport best suited to their physical attributes. To achieve this, the researchers are conducting an investigation into the anthropometric statuses, body indices, and ratios of athletes in university-level team sports.

METHODS

Study design and participants

The research design was a descriptive cross-sectional study. The subject selection in this study employed purposive sampling, where 135 male university team game athletes aged 17-24 years were selected for basketball, handball, and volleyball. There were 45 players evenly distributed across each group, all of whom had participated in inter-university competitions. The research was conducted in the physical education departments of ten public universities in Bangladesh. The study period for data collection spanned two months, from January 2023 to February 2023.

The study included only participants who met specific health and physical readiness criteria, excluding individuals with acute or chronic illnesses as well as those currently experiencing physical or mental injuries. The study took steps to address ethical considerations by guaranteeing voluntary participation, respecting subjects' right to withdraw, and establishing a transparent contract between researchers and athletes.

Instruments and formulas

Anthropometric data for Ht and Wt were collected using an Indian-made digital scale from OMRON with a stadiometer made by KRUPS. The formula to determine BMI was Wt in kg divided by square of Ht in meter. Measurements for WC and HC were recorded with a CESCORF equipment’s measuring tape from Porto Alegre, Brazil. The WHR was determined by dividing the WC by the HC in centimeters. WHtR was splitting the WC by the Ht in centimeters, and ABSI was estimated using the WC (in meters), BMI, and Ht (in meters).

Here are the formulas:

Measurements procedure

CA was calculated by removing the birth date from the current date. Ht was measured from the base of the top of the skull to the feet while the participants stood upright.

This was done using a KRUPS stadiometer. For accurate measurements, participants removed their shoes and any headgear. They were instructed to face forward and perch atop the stadiometer's plate with their heels touching and feet together, ensuring their back was straight and in contact with the rod. The Ht was then recorded, typically in centimeters. Wt was measured using an OMRON digital scale. Participants, sans shoes and with undergarments, stood on the center of the scale, balancing their Wt evenly on both legs while maintaining an upright posture and facing forward. The digital scale automatically displayed the player's Wt in kilograms. BMI, was utilized to assess body Wt in relation to Ht, calculated by dividing the Wt in kg by the Ht in meters square (weight (kg) / height (m)²). To measure WC, participants were instructed to wear minimal clothing and stand upright with their feet close together. They located the middle distance of their bottom rib and the upper edge of their hip bone (iliac crest), typically just above the navel. A CESCORF flexible, non-stretchable tape measure was utilized. Care was taken to ensure that the tape was level with the floor and straight, not twisted. The tape was fitted around the waist comfortably, snug but not tight enough to compress the skin. Participants exhaled naturally prior to the measurement being recorded in centimeters. HC was measured by identifying the broadest part of the hips, typically around the buttocks area. Participants were advised to wear form-fitting or minimal clothing for precise measurements. They stood upright with a relaxed posture, keeping their feet close together. A CESCORF flexible, non-stretchable measuring tape was used, ensuring it remained parallel to the floor and was not twisted. The WHR was a measurement used to compare the WC by the HC together. The WHtR is a simple measure used to assess body fat distribution and its associated health risks. WHtR is determined by splitting the WC by the Ht in centimeters. The ABSI, a metric developed by Dr. Nir Krakauer, assesses the health implications of a person's body shape. ABSI is calculated using the WC (in meters), BMI, and Ht (in meters).

Statistical analysis

In this study, we employed descriptive statistics, which included mean, standard deviation, standard error, minimum, and maximum values, to summarize the dataset. We conducted a one-way ANOVA followed by LSD post-hoc analysis to compare these variables among groups. Levene's test verified equal variances, confirming a normal data distribution. We also calculated correlation coefficients to assess relationships within each group of variables. IBM SPSS version 22 for Windows was used to perform the statistical analysis, and p values less than 0.05 were used to signify statistical significance.

RESULTS

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, focusing on variables such as CA, Ht, Wt, BMI, WC, HC, WHR, WHtR, and ABSI among athletes from three different sports: basketball, handball, and volleyball. All players, aged 18-24 years, show varied physical stats. Basketball players are generally taller (177.78 cm) and heavier (71.84 kg) compared to volleyball (Ht: 174.26 cm, Wt: 68.03 kg) and handball players (Ht: 170.44 cm, Wt: 66.41 kg). Their BMIs are fairly similar, around the 22-23 range. Handball players have the largest WC (79.44 cm), while basketball players have the largest HC (95.81 cm). WHR are comparable in basketball and volleyball (0.819 cm), slightly higher in handball (0.851 cm). The WHtR means are as follows: basketball (0.443 cm), handball (0.466 cm), and volleyball (0.430 cm), and the ABSI means are: basketball (0.074), handball (0.076), and volleyball (0.072).

Table 2 reveals that the differences observed between the groups were not statistically significant with respect to variables such as CA (F (2, 132)=0.57, p=0.57), BMI (F (2, 132)=0.59, p=0.56), WC (F (2, 132)=2.10, p=0.13), WHR (F (2, 132)=1.37, p=0.27), and ABSI (F (2, 132)=1.41, p=0.25). The analysis showed a marked distinction between the groups regarding the specified variables, namely, Ht (F (2, 132)=13.36, p=0.00), Wt (F (2, 132)=5.74, p=0.00), HC (F (2, 132)=6.33, p=0.00), and WHtR (F (2, 132)=3.60, p=0.03), respectively. The results for CA, BMI, WC, WHR, and ABSI make the argument that significant disparities among the groups are absent. Conversely, the significant results for Ht, Wt, HC, and WHtR indicate substantial differences among the groups.

The LSD post-hoc test (Table 3) showed that notable variations in Ht were observed between the groups. Players in basketball were considerably higher than those in handball (p=0.00) and volleyball (p=0.01). Compared to handball players, volleyball players were much taller (p=0.01). Regarding Wt, there are notable distinctions between basketball and handball athletes (p=0.00), basketball and volleyball players (p=0.02). Still, no appreciable variations were found between handball and volleyball players (p=0.33). Between basketball and volleyball players, there were notable variations in HC (p=0.00). There were no notable variations found in basketball and handball players (p=0.07), or handball and volleyball players (p=0.09). For WHtR, significant differences were found among the handball and volleyball players (p=0.01), and no differences were observed between basketball and handball, or basketball and volleyball players.

Table 4 shows the correlation of the variables CA, Ht, Wt, BMI, WC, HC, and WHR in basketball, handball, and volleyball. For basketball players, Ht showed a moderate positive correlation with Wt (r=0.647**), BMI was moderately correlated with Wt (r=0.604**), WC and HC were high positive correlated (r=868**), and WHR correlated highly with WC (r=0.773**), and weakly with HC (r=0.357*). WC, HC, WHR, and WHtR show positive high to very highly correlations with each other (ranging from r=0.775** to r=0.946**), ABSI also shows strong to extremely strong positive connections with WC, HC, WHR, and WHtR (ranging from r=0.750** to r=0.916**). In the handball group, Ht and Wt were highly correlated (r=0.708**), BMI showed a positively strong correlation with Wt (r=0.774**), and WC had weak correlations with Wt (r=0.323*). WC, WHR, and WHtR show very positively high correlations with each other (r=0.931**, and r=0.982**), ABSI also shows strong to extremely strong positive connections with WC, WHR, and WHtR (r=0.943**, r=0.889**, and r=0.951**). For the volleyball group, CA had a weak positive correlation with Wt (r=0.336*) and BMI (r=0.322*). Ht and Wt were moderately correlated (r=0.587**), BMI showed a strong correlation with Wt (r=0.758**), WC and HC had a high correlation (r=0.849**), and WHR correlated highly with WC (r=0.774**) and weakly with HC (r=0.324*). WC, HC, WHR, and WHtR show positive high to very high correlations with each other (ranging from r=0.737** to r=0.931**), ABSI also shows positive moderate to high correlations with WC, HC, WHR, and WHtR (ranging from r=0.630** to r=0.804**). There was a statistically significant correlation at 0.01.

*Significant at 0.05 level

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

*Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (two-tailed), **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Table 5 compares mean BMI, WHR, WHtR and ABSI for athletes in basketball, handball and volleyball. These metrics are measured against value ranges and classifications, citing their sources. In BMI, all three sports groups are classified as normal weight. At WHR, each group is below the risk threshold. At WHtR, all games are in a safe range. In the ABSI, all groups showed a very low mortality risk. Overall, athletes in these sports exhibit health metrics within normal or safe values.

DISCUSSION

The results in Table 2 showed that no notable variations in body mass and shape indices, including the WC and ratio of WHR. However, significant variations were found in Ht, Wt, HC, and the ratio of WHtR among basketball, handball, and volleyball players. Previous researchers have found that basketball, handball, and volleyball, which are team-based ball sports, have several variables that are significant, while others are not.^21,22 Table 4, focusing on the relationship in three different team sports, revealed strong positive correlations among various physical measurements in each group. The data indicated a consistent pattern of significant associations between these body metrics across the different sports groups. Physical activity significantly impacts body composition and athletic performance across different sports.²³ Soccer players with a higher BMI have a lower aerobic capacity, while over 90% of elite soccer players have a normal BMI.^24,25 BMI and WHR are used to assess abdominal characteristics,²⁶ and excess fat in the lower limbs and abdomen negatively impacts the performance of marathon runners.²⁷ However, body composition, with larger sizes benefitting, varies by sport and position. Players in different sports and positions exhibit varying body variations.^28-30 Researchers suggest that these measures may not always accurately reflect an athlete's health or performance ability, especially in strength and power sports.³¹

Physical activity, particularly in sports, generally leads to lower BMIs and body fat percentages in athletes compared to inactive individuals.³² BMI is useful for evaluating physical capabilities across different sports and performance levels.³³ Although BMI is not the sole indicator of athletic performance, it is significant in sports requiring agility, speed, and strength, like basketball, where athletes benefit from low body fat and increased lean muscle.³⁴ BMI showed no notable differences and significant variations were observed in body Ht and Wt, with volleyball players being notably taller than handball players.³⁵ However, when assessing fat levels in athletes and young adults, BMI should be used with other anthropometric measures for greater accuracy.³⁶ Anthropometric measurements, such as height, weight, and WHR, are crucial for evaluating health and performance in volleyball, linking them to injuries and imaging outcomes.³⁷ Basketball research focuses on height, body mass, and limb length, while handball study emphasized that WHR had a positive relationship with the physical fitness of male university players.^38,39 Additionally, the WHtR is the best predictor of health danger in adults, outperforming WC and BMI.⁴⁰

In general, athletes participating in basketball, handball, and volleyball were evaluated against established norms and classifications. All three sports categories fell within the normal weight range according to their BMI. In terms of WHR, each group was found to be below the risk threshold. With regard to WHtR, athletes from all three sports were within a safe range. For ABSI, all groups demonstrated a significantly low risk of mortality. Thus, athletes in these sports demonstrate health metrics that are within normal or safe ranges.

Limitations

Limitation of the study was to increase its accuracy by including more measurements and formulas to calculate various indices and ratios for athletes. Increasing the number of team sports and expanding the sample size contributed to obtaining more accurate results.

CONCLUSION

Team sports athletes exhibited comparable body mass and shape indices, with consistent ratios in WHR. However, the WHtR ratio was the single metric displaying notable differences between the groups. Athletes from basketball, handball, and volleyball consistently maintained health metrics like BMI, WHR, WHtR, and ABSI within the normal weight and safe health thresholds. However, team sports and even specific positions within those sports require unique physical characteristics for optimal performance. It suggests the benefits of regular sports participation and intense training for both professional athletes and individuals.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee

REFERENCES

1. 1. Toselli S. Body composition and physical health in sports practice: An editorial. Int J Environmental Res Public Heal. 2021;18(9):1-4.
2. 2. Stewart AD. The concept of body composition and its applications. In Stewart A, Sutton L, editors. Body Composition in Sport, Exercise and Health. Routledge. 2012;1-19.
3. 3. Rodriguez NR, Di Marco NM, Langley S. American college of sports medicine position stand. Nutrition and athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2009;41(3):709-31.
4. 4. National Strength and Conditioning Association. Sport performance and body composition. Available at: https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/kinetic-select/sport-performance-and-body-composition/. Accessed on 1 January, 2024.
5. 5. Malina RM. Body composition in athletes: assessment and estimated fatness. Clin Sports Med. 2007;26(1):37-68.
6. 6. Radu LE, Hazar F, Puni AR. Anthropometric and physical fitness characteristics of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci. 2014;149:798-802.
7. 7. World Health Organization. Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organization technical report series. Geneva. 2000;894:i-253
8. 8. Ahsan M, Ali MF. Body mass index: A determinant of distress, depression, self-esteem, and satisfaction with life amongst recreational athletes from random intermittent dynamic type sports. Heliyon. 2023;9(4):e15563.
9. 9. Haufs MG, Zöllner YF. Waist-Hip Ratio More Appropriate Than Body Mass Index. DeutschesArzteblatt Int. 2020;117(39):659-60.
10. 10. Ashwell M, Gunn P, Gibson S. Waist-to-height ratio is a better screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk factors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Rev. 2012;13(3):275-86.
11. 11. Lee JS, Aoki K, Kawakubo K, Gunji A. A study on indices of body fat distribution for screening for obesity. J Occupational Heal. 1995;37(1):9-18.
12. 12. Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H. Abdominal fat distribution and coronary heart disease risk factors in men-waist/height ratio as a simple and useful predictor. Int J Obesity Related Metab Disord. 1995;19(8):585-9
13. 13. Ashwell M, Lejeune S, McPherson K. Ratio of waist circumference to height may be better indicator of need for weight management. BMJ Clin Res. 1996;312(7027):377.
14. 14. Zhou W, Zhu L, Yu Y, Yu C, Bao H, Cheng X. A Body Shape Index is positively associated with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in the Chinese population with normal weight: A prospective cohort study. Nutrit Metabol Cardiovascular Dis. 2023;33(9):1702-8.
15. 15. Krakauer NY, Krakauer JC. A new body shape index predicts mortality hazard independently of body mass index. PloS One. 2012;7(7):e39504.
16. 16. Kajikawa M, Maruhashi T, Kishimoto S, Yamaji T, Harada T, Hashimoto Y, et al. A body shape index is associated with endothelial dysfunction in both men and women. Scient Rep. 2021;11(1):17873.
17. 17. Krakauer JC, Krakauer NY. Combining Body Mass and Shape Indices in Clinical Practice. Case Rep Med. 2016;2016:1526175.
18. 18. World Health Organization. Surveillance of chronic disease risk factors: Country-level data and comparable estimates. The SuRF Report 2, WHO Global InfoBase team. 2005. Available at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/43190/9241593024_eng.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed on 3 January 2024.
19. 19. World Health Organization. Waist circumference and waist-hip ratio: Report of a WHO expert consultation, Geneva, 8-11 December 2008. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241501491. Accessed on 3 January 2024.
20. 20. NICE. Obesity: identification, assessment, and management. Clinical Guideline [CG189]. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. London. 2024. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg189. Accessed on 1 January, 2024.
21. 21. Rahman MH, Sharma JP. An assessment of maximal isometric hand grip strength and upper body explosive strength and endurance in various ball sports. Physical Education Theory Methodol. 2023;23(6):932-9.
22. 22. Reza MN, Rahman MH, Islam MS, Gayen A. An examination of audio-visual simple reaction times in selected court games. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2023;17(1):9-14.
23. 23. Thomas DT, Erdman KA, Burke LM. American college of sports medicine joint position statement. Nutrition and athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2016;48(3):543-68.
24. 24. González-Neira M, San Mauro-Martín I, García-Angulo B, Fajardo D, Garicano-Vilar E. Nutritional and body composition assessment and its relationship with athletic performance in a women’s soccer team. Spanish J Human Nutrit Dietetics. 2014;19(1):36-48.
25. 25. Parrish R. The Ideal Weight for a Soccer Player. SportsRec. Available at: https://www.sportsrec.com/5464445/the-ideal-weight-for-a-soccer-player. Accessed on 1 January, 2024.
26. 26. Islam MS. Relationship of abdominal muscle endurance with selected anthropometric measurements in soccer players. Int J Physiol Nutrit Physical Educat. 2018;3(2):1088-90.
27. 27. Belli T, Meireles CL de S, Costa MO, Ackermann MA, Gobatto CA. Somatotype, body composition and performance in ultramarathon. Revista Brasileira De Cineantropometria Desempenho Humano. 2016;18(2):127-35.
28. 28. Duren DL, Sherwood RJ, Czerwinski SA, Lee M, Choh AC, Siervogel RM, et al. Body composition methods: Comparisons and interpretation. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(6):1139-46.
29. 29. Aurelio J, Dias E, Soares T, Jorge G, Cunha Espanda MA. Relationship between body composition anthropometry and physical fitness in under-12 soccer players of different positions. Int J Sports Sci. 2016;6(1):25-30.
30. 30. Fields JB, Merrigan JJ, White JB, Jones MT. Body composition variables by sport and sport-position in elite collegiate athletes. J Strength Conditioning Res. 2018;32(11):3153-9.
31. 31. Ackland TR, Lohman TG, Sundgot-Borgen J, Maughan RJ, Meyer NL, Stewart AD, et al. Current status of body composition assessment in sport. Sports Med. 2012;42(3):227-49.
32. 32. Wan Nudri WD, Wan Abdul Manan WM, Mohamed Rusli A. Body mass index and body fat status of men involved in sports, exercise, and sedentary activities. Malaysian J Med Sci. 2009;16(2):21-6.
33. 33. Sedeaud A, Marc A, Marck A, Dor F, Schipman J, Dorsey M, et al. BMI, a performance parameter for speed improvement. PloS One. 2014;9(2):e90183.
34. 34. Hillman J. How BMI impacts sports and how much you should depend on it. Running Shoes Reviews and Buying Guide. Running Shoes Guru. 2019. Available at: https://www.runningshoesguru.com/content/how-bmi-impacts-sports-and-how-much-you-should-depend-on-it/. Accessed on 1 January, 2024.
35. 35. Masanovic B, Milosevic Z, Corluka M. Comparative study of anthropometric measurement and body composition between junior handball and volleyball players from Serbian national league. Int J Appli Exercise Physiol. 2018;7(4):1-7.
36. 36. Ode JJ, Pivarnik JM, Reeves MJ, Knous JL. Body mass index as a predictor of percent fat in college athletes and nonathletes. Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2007;39(3):403-9.
37. 37. Milanese C, Piscitelli F, Lampis C, Zancanaro C. Anthropometry and body composition of female handball players according to competitive level or the playing position. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(12):1301-9.
38. 38. Gryko K, Stastny P, Kopiczko A, Mikołajec K, Pecha O, Perkowski K. Can anthropometric variables and maturation predict the playing position in youth basketball players? J Human Kinetics. 2019;69:109-23.
39. 39. Bakinde TS. Correlates of body composition and motor performance variables of university of Ilorin male handball players. Int J Res Education. 2021;1(2):75-85.
40. 40. Yoo EG. Waist-to-height ratio as a screening tool for obesity and cardiometabolic risk. Kor J Pediatr. 2016;59(11):425-31.